Divine demand theory is an ethical view predicated on theism or the belief that God exists. Followers of the idea accept that moral judgment is derived from an understanding of God's personality or his immediate commandments. In other words, "what is relative to God's command is moral and what's contrary to that command word is immoral" (Farnell, 2005). The holy books of each religion (e. g. The Bible, Koran, and Torah) contain God's guidelines. Therefore, they can be used as courses to distinguish between morally bad and the good actions. The theory that ethics and faith are connected is far-reaching, and it leads us to examine religion's role in our society.
Advantages
Although divine command theory has been declined as a working ethical theory, there are a few ways in which it does provide an edge as an honest construction. First, God's commands set forth common moral rules. The guidelines can be employed to anyone, all the time and places. The fact that God is eternal rather than changes means that his instructions are as relevant today as when they were first saved.
Second, God's orders don't rely upon what others think are right or wrong. His instructions are completely objective. For example, one of God's commandments is never to commit murder (Exodus 21:13). Even when your friends think that murder is acceptable (for example, capital abuse), they are still incorrect because their beliefs oppose God's will. Under this theory, morality is present outside of human reasoning because God is the best authority.
Third, if you disobey God, you'll be punished. If you follow his orders, you'll be rewarded. God is both omnipotent and omnipresent. If you choose to disobey, your consequence is inescapable. If you obey, God will bless you with eternal life and a location in heaven. Those that believe have a solid incentive to check out his orders.
Finally, traditional religions are generations old and have recorded many of God's commands. Spiritual texts allow us to know and understand the type of God, plus they make it easier to learn how to act morally. For Religious believers, the term of God is in The Bible and they're secure in the concrete, moral teachings written in its web pages.
Critiques
There are the key reason why divine command line theory falls short as an operating ethical point of view. One objection focuses on the sheer amount of world religions and their different interpretations of the type of God (or their gods). How does a divine control theorist know that their God's orders are the right ones to check out? It really is impossible to demonstrate that the insights of Allah overrule the regulations of Yahweh. Even within Christianity, a schism has existed between Catholic and Protestant believers since The Reformation in 1517. Under divine demand theory only 1 religion can be right and the followers of this God will be the only ones leading moral lives (Austin, 2006). This leads in to the next objection.
God's instructions can be easily misconstrued. That is, how do we determine the right interpretation of the sacred texts? When God declares that we shouldn't commit murder, will that mean murder is usually immoral, or should we look at the specific context in which God provided this command? In this procedure for interpretation, we could actually exercising our own sense of morality. We should rely on our own knowledge of God's goodness and act on moral laws and regulations we deem regular with God's orders (Adams, 1999). We can not take ourselves completely out of the picture when identifying God's position on moral issues.
Perhaps the most convincing discussion against divine command line theory is the fact it leaves open the idea that immoral works might not be wrong. That means God's directions are arbitrary in characteristics. Murray and Rea (2008) declare that, "the [divine command] process that determines what's moral or immoral does not actually entail moral considerations. " If God omitted the command forbidding murder, then it would no more be an immoral action. On the other hand, if God is restricted from commanding the murder of children or stealing from the poor, then the reasoning behind divine demand theory falls apart. God is no longer the sole source for moral knowledge plus some knowledge beyond God makes those functions immoral.
Plato's Euthyphro
Plato's basic dialogue Euthyphro will be raised in conversations about the partnership between God and ethics. The dialogue features a conversation of piety between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youngsters of Athens by leading them from their belief in gods. Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for manslaughter in the death of the servant. About midway through the dialogue, Socrates asks his famous question: "May be the pious adored by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious since it is liked by the gods?" (Plato & Chapel, 1987) This is actually the same as stating: Will God control an action because it is morally right, or is it a morally right action because God commands it?
If the last mentioned holds true, then God can either command line or refuse to speak against immoral acts and that can make them moral. Inside the Bible, God commanded his most devout follower, Abraham, to sacrifice his favorite son Isaac (Genesis 22:1-24). Abraham bound Isaac over a hilltop and was just about to commit filicide when an angel of the Lord came down to stop him. There is no question that Abraham could have murdered Isaac had God not intervened at the last second. Although there's a happy ending to this parable, the inferred concept here's that God gets the capacity to upend morality anytime. If God is the best authority, then nothing should stop us from honoring his won't even our honest boundaries.
If the past is true, then morality has a source beyond God. Naturally God will demand what is morally right every time, because God is all-knowing. Actually, he already understands what's right or incorrect before he even codes it. Which means God's directions are consistent with an unbiased moral standard. God's perfect mother nature restricts him from making immoral serves moral. Thus, right and wrong are not predicated on God's will alone. This places God in the same situation that we are in. We also starting our behavior with an ethical standard that we discover alternatively than invent. We've just made God irrelevant as it pertains to moral power.
Faith vs. reason
Faith in God seems diametrically against reason and good sense. The main allure of religion is the intense passion that believers bring with their beliefs. Christianity is a powerful force inside our society because it requests the most suspension system of disbelief in its followers. The commitment involved with retaining that the Son of God was created a mortal man infused with the Holy Spirit is enormous. On the other hand, if faith fell directly consistent with reason then it wouldn't encourage the passion it includes throughout the ages.
There are many who keep beliefs and reason as different and distinct elements of their lives. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that reason by themselves is sufficient to understand between right and incorrect (Clark & Poortenga, 2003). He also assumed that human being reason was a manifestation of God's will. If God do create us in his image, then our knowledge of morality is an extension of this. God can have chosen to create us some other way, but ultimately, our human nature demands that people lead a good and moral life to be satisfied. As an ethical construct, divine command word theory fails under demanding, philosophical critiques, but that doesn't mean ethical reasoning and faith cannot coexist. Those who believe in God may use reason to responsibly determine how best to conform their patterns to his instructions.
